2.
OVERTIME COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA
This paper is intended to provide workers’ compensation lawyers with a very
brief and general overview of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and which
workers are covered by the FLSA’s overtime provisions. Of course, what follows does
not come close to addressing the many coverage issues arising under the FLSA and
similar state statutes. If you are interested in learning more, an especially excellent
overview of the substantive law can be found in Betty Southard Murphy and Elliot S.
Azoff, Guide to Wage and Hour Regulation , 2d Ed. (BNA 1998). Other generalized
information can be found at the website for the Wage & Hour Division of the United
States Department of Labor (“ww.dol.gov/esa/whd/”) and in Robert N. Covington and
Kurt H. Decker, Employment Law in a Nutshell (West 2002). More detailed analysis can
be found in Les A. Schneider and J. Larry Stein, Wage and Hour Law: Compliance and
Practice (West 2000).
I. Why Should I Care About the FLSA and the Overtime Pay Requirement?
The FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., is the primary source of this
Nation's minimum wage, overtime, and child labor protections. With respect to overtime,
the FLSA generally prohibits companies from requiring workers to work over forty hours
in a workweek unless the worker is compensated for all overtime hours at a rate not less
than one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
Enacted in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FLSA overtime
provision reflects the progressive values underlying so much of the New Deal legislation.
The legislative purpose behind the time-and-one-half overtime premium was two-fold.
First, the overtime premium was intended “to ensure that each employee covered by the
Act would receive ‘[a] fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ and would be protected from
‘the evil of overwork as well as underpay.’” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys.
Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981) (quoting 81 Cong. Rec. 4983 (1937) (message of
President Roosevelt)). Second, quot;[i]n a period of widespread unemployment and small
profits, the economy inherent in avoiding extra pay was expected to have an appreciable
effect in the distribution of available work.quot; Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316
U.S. 572, 578 (1942). In other words, Congress intended that, by making overtime
prohibitively expensive, the FLSA would force companies to hire more workers instead
of requiring existing workers to work overtime.
The noble legislative purpose behind the FLSA's overtime requirement is worth
pondering as you decide whether to make wage and hour litigation a part of your practice.
As a workers’ compensation attorney, you might find that a wage and hour practice is a
good fit with your firm’s mission of fighting for workplace justice. You also may find
that many of your clients are aware of serious wage and hour violations. Of course, you
cannot know if you do not ask.
A-2

3.
II. Are My Clients Covered?
According to the Department of Labor, over eighty million American workers are
covered by the FLSA. See DOL Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet No. 14 (available at
“www.dol.gov/esa/whd/”). For purposes of coverage, the FLSA interprets the term
“employee” in the broadest sense to include “any individual employed by an employer.”
29 U.S.C. § 203(e). Covered employees can include, among others, independent
contractors, see Johnson v. Unified Govt. Wyandotte Cty., 371 F.3d 723, 729 (10th Cir.
2004) (describing factors to be considered in deciding whether worker is covered
employee or independent contractor), and even trainees, see Chelen v. John Pickle Co.,
344 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1291-92 (N.D. Okla. 2004) (describing factors to be considered in
determining whether trainee is covered employee).
Workers fall within the FLSA’s reach so long as they are engaged in covered
activity. Covered activity can be established under either the “individual/traditional
coverage” doctrine or the “enterprise coverage” doctrine. Under individual/traditional
coverage, workers are covered if, based on their job function, they are engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1) and
207(a)(1). Under enterprise coverage, workers, regardless of their job function, are
covered if their company is part of a business enterprise that is engaged in commerce or
the production of goods in commerce. See id. at §§ 203(r)-(s). In order to qualify for
enterprise coverage, the company generally must do at least $500,000 in annual business,
see id. at § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii), but this threshold can be reached by combining the company
with other business partners in a “common business purpose, see Chao v. A-One Med.
Serv., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 914-15 (9th Cir 2003) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1)). Also,
exceptions are made for various non-profit and public entities. See 29 U.S.C. §
203(s)(5)-(6).
Given the extraordinarily broad parameters of the individual/traditional and
enterprise coverage doctrines, you generally can assume that most of your clients are
covered by the FLSA. Furthermore, in Ohio workers are covered by the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act [“OMFWSA”]codified at Ohio Rev. Code §4111 et seq. The
Ohio statue does not provide more protection to employees than the federal regulations;
however, the Ohio statue does make clear that it adopts the federal standards as its own
by numerous references to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
There are 18 states that provide additional protections beyond the FLSA. The
attached table, derived from information in Attorney Barbara Kate Repa’s excellent
handbook entitled Your Rights in the Workplace 6th Ed. (Nolo 2002), lists states that
provide their own statutory overtime protections.
III. Specific Ohio Requirements, different from the FLSA.
Ohio regulates the wages of employees of employers whose gross volume of sales
are more than $150,000, but less than $500,000. An employer that falls in this category
A-3

4.
must pay overtime at a rate of one and one half the employee’s hourly rate after 40
working hours in a week.
On November 7, 2006 Ohio passed the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Amendment.
Effective January 1, 2007 the minimum wage in Ohio is $6.85 per hour for employees of
employers with gross annual receipts of $250,000 or more. If the employer makes less
than $250,000 in gross annual receipts, it can still pay the federal minimum wage of
$5.15 an hour. Employers may also pay tipped employees, such as waiters and
waitresses, less than the new minimum wage, but no less than half, provided that the tips
received by the worker, combined with his wage, add up to at least equal or more than the
new minimum wage.
Under Ohio law, employers must pay employees at least two times in a month.
Contrary to popular belief, an employer does not have to pay bonuses or give vacation in
Ohio.
IV. Are “Salaried” Employees Entitled to Overtime?
One of the myths of the American workplace is that “salaried” workers are not
entitled to overtime. Exploiting this myth, some companies promote workers from
“hourly” to “salaried” positions with the understanding that, in exchange for the salary,
the worker gives up her right to overtime pay. Because these “salaried” job titles often
carry an elevated status within the workplace, working without overtime may seem
reasonable to the worker.
But the FLSA does not exempt all salaried workers from overtime pay. Rather,
where a salaried worker is covered by the overtime provision, her salary is usually
calculated by dividing her weekly salary by the number of hours the salary is intended to
compensate. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.113(a). However, many variations on this general rule
exist, see id. at §§ 778.107, et seq., and these variations are too detailed for coverage
here.
V. Are “Salaried” Employees Ever Exempt From Overtime?
The FLSA exempts certain executive, administrative, professional, outside sales,
and computer employees from the entitlement to time-and-one-half overtime benefits.
See 29 U.S.C. §§ 213(a)(1) and 213(a)(17). These exemptions commonly are referred to
as the “white collar” exemptions, and they have spawned substantial litigation as some
American companies choose to push the envelope in increasingly aggressive efforts to
deny overtime pay to workers and their families.
The white-collar exemptions – like all FLSA exemptions – are narrowly
construed against the employer. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowski, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392
(1960); A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 493 (1945).
A-4

5.
To utilize a white-collar exemption, a company generally must clear two
independent hurdles:
A. The “Salary Basis” Requirement
First, the employee must be paid on a “salary basis” at a salary of at least $455 per
week. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.600(a); see generally Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)
(discussing “salary basis” concept). “An employee will be considered to be paid on a
‘salary basis’ . . . if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less
frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's
compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the
quality or quantity of the work performed.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a). Generally, the
employee “must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any
work without regard to the number of days or hours worked.” Id. However, under
appropriate circumstances (which are described in the regulation), deductions may be
made for full-day absences attributable to, inter alia, illness or disciplinary suspensions.
See id. at 541.602(b).
Historically, many misclassification cases have been won because companies
made improper deductions from a salaried employee’s pay. See, e.g., Takacs v. Hahn
Automotive Corp., 246 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2001) (managers and assistant managers of
retail establishment not exempt from overtime entitlement because company subjected
them to improper deductions for certain disciplinary infractions); Oral v. Aydin Corp.,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20625 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2001) (workers not exempt from
overtime entitlement because company subjected them to improper deductions for partial-
day sick absences). However, seeking to protect business from large damages awards,
the Department of Labor recently expanded regulations allowing companies to escape
some liability for “inadvertent” pay deductions that are voluntarily reimbursed by the
company. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.603. How the 2004 regulations play out in court remains
to be seen.
Deductions are permissible in certain limited circumstances.
1. An employee is not required to be paid for any week in which she
performs no work. See, C.F.R. § 541.118(a).
2. An employee is not required to be paid for a day where she missed a full
day for personal reasons. See, C.F.R. § 541.118(a).
3. An employee is not required to be paid for any day occasioned by sickness
or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan,
policy, or practice of providing compensation for loss of salary occasioned
by both sickness and disability. See, C.F.R. § 541.118(a) (3).
4. The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 created some limited exceptions
permitting employers to place otherwise exempt, salaried, employee on
unpaid leave. See, C.F.R. § 825.206(a).
A-5

6.
5. Employees can be docked pay for major safety violations. See, C.F.R. §
541.118(a) (5)
B. The “Job Duties” Requirement
Even if the worker is paid on a “salary basis,” an analysis of the worker’s job
duties must reveal that she actually works as an executive, administrative, professional,
outside sales, or computer employee, as those terms are defined under the FLSA. Before
turning to each of these exemptions, three preliminary points are in order.
First, in 2004, the Department of Labor expanded the reach of the white-collar
exemptions in its business-friendly amendments to the overtime regulations. The
amended regulations appear at 29 C.F.R. 541.0, et seq.1
Second, even where the revised regulations disadvantage particular employees,
advocates should remember that many states have their own overtime laws and
regulations and that some state regulations contain language that mirrors the pre-2004
federal regulations. In Ohio, the OMFWSA incorporates the definitions and tests of the
FLSA. See, Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.01(D) (4). As previously stated, states with their
own overtime laws are identified in the attached chart. Importantly, the FLSA does not
preempt state laws that offer workers more protection than the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. §
541.4 (“Employers must comply with any Federal, State, or municipal laws, regulations,
or ordinances establishing a higher minimum wage or lower maximum workweek than
those established under the Act”); DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir.
2003) (recognizing that overtime lawsuits may be litigated under both federal and state
laws). Also, workers cannot waive their FLSA rights through individual employment
contracts or collective bargaining agreements. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.4.
Third, even the new regulations confirm the well-established principle that “[a]
job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee.” 29 C.F.R. §
541.2; see also Martin v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 381 F.3d 574, 585-86 (6th Cir.
2004) (“The FLSA requires the employer to make FLSA exemption decisions based on
the employee's actual job duties, not the employee's job title.”); Barth v. Wolf Creek
Nuclear Operating Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 437, 439 (D. Kan. 2000) (quoting previous
regulatory language for proposition that quot;[t]itles can be had cheaply and are of no
determinative valuequot;). In other words, a company cannot escape its overtime obligations
by giving a worker a salary and a glamorous title but requiring her to perform the same
work as her non-exempt co-workers.
1
For a good discussion of how and why these amendments harm American workers, the
reader is referred to the Economic Policy Institute’s June 26, 2003 Briefing Paper entitled
“Eliminating the Right to Overtime Pay” and available at the Institute’s web site
(“www.epinet.org”).
A-6

7.
With the above in mind, we turn to the FLSA’s various white-collar exemptions.
1. The Executive Employee Exemption
To qualify for the “executive” employee exemption, the following criteria must be
established: (i) the worker’s primary duty must be managing the enterprise or managing a
customarily recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise; (ii) the worker must
customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time
employees or their equivalent; and (iii) the worker must have the authority to hire or fire
other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring,
firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees must be
given particular weight. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a). The concurrent performance of
executive and non-executive work does not necessarily disqualify a worker from
classification as an executive employee. See id. at § 541.106.
In applying the executive exemption, the devil is in the details. Before deciding
whether a worker meets the above criteria, one must carefully study the definitions of
applicable terms such as “primary duty,” see id. at § 541.700, “customarily” and
“regularly,” see id. at § 541.701, “management,” see id. at § 541.102, “department or
subdivision,” ,” see id. at § 541.103, “two or more other employees,” see id. at § 541.104,
and “particular weight,” see id. at § 541.105. In issuing the 2004 amendments, the
Department of Labor generally altered these definitions for the benefit of corporate
America. However, there remains ample room to argue that workers do not fall within the
revised executive exemption, and, like many regulatory changes, the amended exemption
probably is neither as beneficial as business hopes nor as harmful as workers fear. See,
e.g., Beauchamp v. Flex-N-Gate, LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3108, *10 N. 3 (E.D.
Mich. Feb 23, 2005) (suggesting that 2004 regulations did not significantly alter analysis
of whether production supervisor was exempt executive employee).
2. The Administrative Employee Exemption
To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, the employee’s primary
duty (i) must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the
management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers
and (ii) must include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to
matters of significance. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a). The regulations, as amended in
2004, define in great detail key terms, such as “primary duty,” see id. at § 541.700,
“directly related to management or business operations,” see id. at § 541.201, and
“discretion and independent judgment,” see id. at § 541.202.
Also, the 2004 amendments include various “examples” of positions that
“generally” fall within the administrative exemption. See id. Not surprisingly – given the
pro-business tenor of the 2004 amendments – these examples read like a “who’s who” of
job titles that have been the subject of recent class action lawsuits. However, at least one
court has observed that a job title’s inclusion in the Department of Labor’s list of
A-7

8.
examples does not preclude the judiciary from finding that, in reality, the worker is not
exempt from overtime benefits. See Robinson-Smith v. Government Employees Ins. Co.,
323 F. Supp. 2d 12, 21-22 (D.D.C. 2004) (insurance claims adjustors not exempt from
overtime notwithstanding new regulatory language that “[i]nsurance claims adjustors
generally meet the duties requirement for the administrative exemption . . .”). This same
court has observed that “[t]he general criteria for employees employed in a bona fide
administrative capacity are essentially the same under the August 2004 Regulations as
under the current regulations.” Id. at 18.
3. The Professional Employee Exemption
Workers are classified as exempt “professional employees” if their “primary duty
is the performance of work (i) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of
science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction or (ii) requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized
field of artistic or creative endeavor.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.300. Similarly, workers are
classified as exempt “learned professionals” if their primary duty is “the performance of
work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired
by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.” Id. at § 541.301. Finally,
workers are classified as “creative professionals” if their primary duty is “the
performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a
recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor as opposed to routine mental, manual,
mechanical or physical work.” Id. at § 541.302.
As with the administrative exemption, the 2004 regulations gratuitously suggest
that various job titles generally fall within the professional exemptions. These include,
among others, certain “medical technologists,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(e)(1), “registered
nurses” (but not “licensed practical nurses”), id. at § 541.301(e)(2) certain “dental
hygienists,” id. at § 541.301(e)(3), certain “physician assistants,” id. at § 541.301(e)(4),
most “chefs and sous chefs” (but not “cooks who perform predominantly routine mental,
manual, mechanical or physical work”), id. at § 541.301(e)(6), some (but not nearly all)
paralegals, id. at § 541.301(e)(7), most teachers, id. at § 541.303(b), and medical interns
and residents, 29 C.F.R. § 541.304(c). The current Department of Labor apparently is not
concerned with the fact that these examples disrespect the well-established principles that
a worker’s job title is not determinative of his coverage status under the FLSA and that
coverage should be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the worker’s actual
job duties. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 541.2 (“A job title alone is insufficient to establish the
exempt status of an employee.”). One is left with the distinct impression that the
Department’s expansive regulations are intended to usurp the judicial function of
interpreting the FLSA’s meaning.
4. Computer Employees, Outside Salesmen, and Highly Compensated
Employees
A-8

9.
The regulations also exempt “[c]omputer systems analysts, computer
programmers, software engineers or other similarly skilled workers in the computer
field,” 29 U.S.C. § 541.400(a), as well as most “outside salesmen,” see id. at § 541.500,
et seq., and most employees with a total annual compensation in excess of $100,000, id.
at 541.601. Because such individuals probably do not make up a substantial portion of
your client base, these exemptions are not discussed further.
5. “Blue Collar” Workers and Public Safety Employees
Even though there never was much doubt about the non-exempt status of “blue
collar” workers, the 2004 regulations explicitly state that the exemptions do not apply to
“manual laborers or other ‘blue collar’ workers who perform work involving repetitive
operations with their hands, physical skill and energy.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a). More
significantly, the new regulations assert that the following public safety providers
generally are not exempt from receiving overtime: “police officers, detectives, deputy
sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, investigators, inspectors, correctional
officers, parole or probation officers, park rangers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency
medical technicians, ambulance personnel, rescue workers, hazardous materials workers
and similar employees, regardless of rank or pay level, who perform work such as
preventing, controlling or extinguishing fires of any type; rescuing fire, crime or accident
victims; preventing or detecting crimes; conducting investigations or inspections for
violations of law; performing surveillance; pursuing, restraining and apprehending
suspects; detaining or supervising suspected and convicted criminals, including those on
probation or parole; interviewing witnesses; interrogating and fingerprinting suspects;
preparing investigative reports; or other similar work.” Id. at § 541.(b)(1).
Apparently, local governments could not match big business’ success in
impacting the regulatory drafting process. But the outcome is one of the only bright spots
in the 2004 regulations, and you should carefully review your client base to ensure that
your law enforcement and other public safety clients are receiving full overtime benefits.
If these workers are unionized, be especially mindful that FLSA rights cannot be waived
by collective bargaining agreements that provide less generous overtime benefits. See 29
C.F.R. § 541.4.
VI. Are any Other Employees Exempt From Overtime Under the FLSA?
In addition to the white-collar exemptions discussed above, the FLSA contains
various statutory exemptions for other types of workers. These exemptions, some of
which are quite broad, include, inter alia:
1. Workers (such as truck drivers) employed by common carriers and
whose qualifications and maximum hours are dictated by the
federal Motor Carrier Act;
2. Most newspaper delivery drivers;
A-9

10.
3. Many chartered bus drivers;
4. Taxicab drivers;
5. Most railroad and airline employees
6. Workers employed in certain “amusement or recreational
establishment[s], organized camp[s], or religious or non-profit
educational conference center[s];”
7. “Seamen” and certain workers employed in the fishing and seafood
industry;
8. Most agricultural workers;
9. Most workers employed by small-market news publications; and
10. Babysitters and certain domestic service workers “employed on a
casual basis.”
See generally 29 U.S.C. § 213.
In Ohio;
1. Any individual who works or provides personal services of a
charitable nature in a hospital or health institution for which
compensation is not sought or contemplated;
2. A member of a police or fire protection agency or student
employed on a part-time or seasonal basis by a political
subdivision of this state;
3. Any individual in the employ of a camp or recreational area for
children under eighteen years of age and owned and operated by a
nonprofit organization or group of organizations described in
Section 501(c)(3) of the quot;Internal Revenue Code of 1954,quot; and
exempt from income tax under Section 501(a) of that code;
4. Any individual employed directly by the House of Representatives
or directly by the senate.
See generally Ohio Rev. Code §4111.01(D).
A-10

11.
VII. Some Specific Examples of Jobs.
1. Mortgage Loan Officers: Some mortgage companies illegally
classify their loan officers as ineligible for overtime pay, even though
these workers routinely work over 40 hours per workweek. In fact,
most mortgage loan officers who spend the majority of their time
working inside the mortgage company’s facility are entitled to
overtime. Click here to contact us if you are a mortgage loan officer
and would like a free attorney consultation.
2. Call Center Workers: Many call center workers are required to
perform duties before and after the beginning of their paid shift. For
example, some companies require call center workers to prepare and
submit reports at the conclusion of their workday. These kinds of
company-mandated activities generally are compensable work. If you
are a call center employee and believe you have not been paid for all
work time, contact us for a free and confidential attorney consultation.
3. Independent Contractors: Some companies refuse to pay workers
overtime by calling them “independent contractors” instead of
“employees.” But whether a worker truly is an independent contractor
depends on the specific, real-life circumstances of his employment. A
worker is not an independent contractor just because the company says
so. If you regularly work over 40 hours in a workweek and are denied
overtime because the boss says you are an “independent contractor,”
you should contact us for a free and confidential attorney consultation.
4. Outside Sales: If you are employed in the capacity of an outside sales
person and your primary duties include; making sales or obtaining
orders or contracts for services or the use of facilities that a customers
pays for and you are regularly away from your employer’s place of
business; you are not entitled to receive overtime. However, you must
have personal contact with the customer away from your employer’s
place of business. Outside sales do not include sales by mail,
telephone or the internet if you never meet the customer in person. If
you set up the promotional materials and/or displays for someone else
who actually makes the sales, you may be entitled to overtime.
5. Social Workers/Caseworkers: Social workers who have Master’s
degrees who work in the area of their advanced degree generally meet
the learned professional exemption and are not entitled to overtime.
However, Caseworkers will generally not qualify for the learned
professional exemption and are due overtime.
A-11

12.
6. Substitute Teachers: Do not automatically meet the teacher
exemption from overtime. The courts have held that substitute
teachers must be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis. Much of the
review will focus on the primary duties. If the primary duty is
teaching then they are not eligible for overtime. On the other hand, if
the duties perform were solely clerical or administrative then they
could qualify for overtime.
7. Insurance Claim Adjusters: Adjusters that have actual claims
handling duties meet the administrative exemption and are not eligible
for overtime. The duties would include but is not limited to
interviewing the insured, witnesses and physicians, inspecting property
damage, reviewing factual information, evaluating and recommending
coverage of claims, negotiating settlements and making
recommendations as to litigation the exemption would apply.
However, if the duties are
VIII. What is work under the FLSA?
As discussed in the accompanying paper, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
generally prohibits companies from requiring workers to work over forty hours in a
workweek unless the worker is compensated for all overtime hours at a rate not less than
one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The FLSA
also requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked in a
workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).
A. What is “Work”?
In view of the above, it’s surprising that “work” is not defined in the FLSA.
Congress left that job to the courts, and – fortunately for workers – the New Deal
Supreme Court wasted little time in laying down worker-friendly precedent and
establishing that “work” under the FLSA should be liberally construed in furtherance of
the statute’s “remedial and humanitarian” purposes. See, e.g., Tennessee Coal, Iron &
Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944).
An activity constitutes work under the FLSA if it (i) is controlled or required by the
employer and (ii) is pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and
its business. See Tennessee Coal, 321 U.S. at 598. The United States Department of
Labor puts it this way:
The workweek ordinarily includes all time during
which an employee is necessarily required to be on the
employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place.
“Workday”, in general, means the period between the time
A-12

13.
on any particular day when such employee commences
his/her “principal activity” and the time on that day at
which he/she ceases such principal activity or activities.
The workday may therefore be longer than the employee's
scheduled shift, hours, tour of duty, or production line time.
DOL Fact Sheet #22, entitled “Hours Worked Under the FLSA” (available at
“www.dol.gov”).
B. Measuring Work
Based on the above, the time clock is not always an accurate measure of a worker’s
compensable work time. In fact, the Supreme Court has
generally recognized that time clocks do not necessarily record
the actual time worked by employees. Where the employee is
required to be on the premises or on duty at a different time, or
where the payroll records or other facts indicate that work starts
at an earlier or later period, the time clock records are not
controlling. Only when they accurately reflect the period worked
can they be used as an appropriate measurement of the hours
worked.
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 690 (1946).
Moreover, because the company – not the worker – is obligated to maintain accurate
records reflecting work hours, the lack of reliable data or recordkeeping benefits the
worker’s in litigation. See Anderson, 328 U.S. at 688 (“The employer cannot be heard to
complain that the damages lack the exactness and precision of measurement that would
be possible had he kept records in accordance with the [Act’s] requirements.”) As stated
by the Supreme Court:
where the employer's records are inaccurate or inadequate and the
employee cannot offer convincing substitutes, a more difficult
problem arises. The solution, however, is not to penalize the
employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is
unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work. Such
a result would place a premium on an employer's failure to keep
proper records in conformity with his statutory duty; it would
allow the employer to keep the benefits of an employee's labors
without paying due compensation as contemplated by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. In such a situation we hold that an
employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in
fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated
and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and
A-13

14.
extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.
The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with
evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with
evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be
drawn from the employee's evidence. If the employer fails to
produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the
employee, even though the result be only approximate.
Id. at 687-88.
C. Common Violations
The Department of Labor gives the following examples of common instances in which
workers might be shortchanged under the above-described principles:
Waiting Time: Whether waiting time is time worked under the
Act depends upon the particular circumstances. Generally, the
facts may show that the employee was engaged to wait (which is
work time) or the facts may show that the employee was waiting
to be engaged (which is not work time). For example, a secretary
who reads a book while waiting for dictation or a fireman who
plays checkers while waiting for an alarm is working during such
periods of inactivity. These employees have been “engaged to
wait.”
On-Call Time: An employee who is required to remain on call
on the employer's premises is working while “on call.” An
employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is
allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not
working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on
the employee's freedom could require this time to be
compensated.
Rest and Meal Periods: Rest periods of short duration, usually
20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the
efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as
working time. These short periods must be counted as hours
worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need
not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly
and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the
authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that
any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and
any extension of the break will be punished. Bona fide meal
periods (typically 30 minutes or more) generally need not be
compensated as work time. The employee must be completely
A-14

15.
relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals. The
employee is not relieved if he/she is required to perform any
duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.
Sleeping Time and Certain Other Activities: An employee
who is required to be on duty for less than 24 hours is working
even though he/she is permitted to sleep or engage in other
personal activities when not busy. An employee required to be on
duty for 24 hours or more may agree with the employer to
exclude from hours worked bona fide regularly scheduled
sleeping periods of not more than 8 hours, provided adequate
sleeping facilities are furnished by the employer and the
employee can usually enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep. No
reduction is permitted unless at least 5 hours of sleep is taken.
Lectures, Meetings and Training Programs: Attendance at
lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities need
not be counted as working time only if four criteria are met,
namely: it is outside normal hours, it is voluntary, not job related,
and no other work is concurrently performed.
Travel Time: The principles which apply in determining whether
time spent in travel is compensable time depends upon the kind
of travel involved.
Home To Work Travel: An employee who travels from home
before the regular workday and returns to his/her home at the end
of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel,
which is not work time.
Home to Work on a Special One Day Assignment in Another
City: An employee who regularly works at a fixed location in
one city is given a special one day assignment in another city and
returns home the same day. The time spent in traveling to and
returning from the other city is work time, except that the
employer may deduct/not count that time the employee would
normally spend commuting to the regular work site.
Travel That is All in the Day's Work: Time spent by an
employee in travel as part of his/her principal activity, such as
travel from job site to job site during the workday, is work time
and must be counted as hours worked.
Travel Away from Home Community: Travel that keeps an
employee away from home overnight is travel away from home.
A-15

16.
Travel away from home is clearly work time when it cuts across
the employee's workday. The time is not only hours worked on
regular working days during normal working hours but also
during corresponding hours on nonworking days. As an
enforcement policy the Division will not consider as work time
that time spent in travel away from home outside of regular
working hours as a passenger on an airplane, train, boat, bus, or
automobile.
DOL Fact Sheet #22, entitled “Hours Worked Under the FLSA” (available at
“www.dol.gov”).
D. “Donning and Doffing” and the Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez
Under Supreme Court cases, activities “such as the donning and doffing of
specialized protective gear, that are ‘performed either before or after the
regular work shift, on or off the production line, are compensable . . . if those
activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for
which covered workmen are employed.” IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, __ U.S. __,
126 S. Ct. 514, 521 (2005) (quoting Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256
(1956)).
In November 2005, the Supreme Court decided IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, supra.,
unanimously holding that workers in a beef processing plant are entitled to be
paid for the time spent traveling between the donning and doffing changing
area and the workers’ assigned locations on the production line. A copy of the
IBP decision is attached. You should read this decision. And be sure to savor
every moment, because unanimous Supreme Court decisions favoring workers
over giant corporations are not in abundant supply.
V. Conclusion
Enforcement of our Nation’s wage and hour laws is a noble undertaking that may
be rewarding and profitable for workers’ compensation attorneys. As discussed above,
many of your existing workers’ compensation and disability clients are entitled to
overtime, and, as more companies violate the overtime laws, it becomes increasingly
likely that your clients will have legitimate overtime claims.
Overtime lawsuits often are commenced and resolved as class action lawsuits.
The next “big” overtime case might be right under your nose. But you will never know if
you do not ask.
A-16